The Shyning of Them Broakin Machines

An exchange in the comments in yesterday’s post about my correspondence with a British journalist is worth reproducing here, since not many people are still reading that thread. What we discussed bears on a larger issue, one that I consider crucial in the ongoing war of memes between “extremists” like us and the PC/MC consensus. To engage the issue, we must jump up to a higher meta-level of ideological discourse.

My good friend Paul Weston offered this advice:

Baron, I think perhaps you should have answered his following question: “Is it possible, I wonder, whether your politics might have robbed you somewhat of your humanity?”

You could have said that the more you learn about the inhumanity displayed by Islam toward women, homosexuals, democracy and all non-Muslims, has only made you more aware of your own humanism and reinforced your desire to oppose Islam on the very basis of humanity.

It is a good point of defence to turn the liberal/left’s alliance with inhumane Islam against them, particularly when we are advocating what they would term “minority rights” which they purport to care deeply about.

There’s nothing wrong with what he says, assuming that it would be a good idea to answer the question at all. But that’s where we differ. Here’s what I replied:

You are correct — that is, the answer you suggest would be correct — but answering the question is not a prudent tactic.

Every time we answer an are-you-still-beating-your-wife-question, our arm gets stuck in the PC/MC Left’s own tar baby and we cannot help but be sucked further and further in. These are arguments and discussions where our opponents control all the premises. They are designed to trap us and immobilize us in impossible rhetorical positions so that we waste our energy constantly defending ourselves.

Every time I hear Tommy or Geert say “I’m not a racist”, I wince. Oh, I quite understand why they feel the need to defend themselves in such a manner, but by doing so they are being dragged onto a playing field where they cannot possibly win the game — the rules are rigged so as to make them lose.

No one believes the man who answers in the negative when asked if he is still beating his wife. In a similar way, no one outside the Counterjihad believes a Counterjihad person when he says he is not a racist. They already know he is a racist. They don’t need no stinkin’ evidence or logic. They just KNOW.

Therefore, the way to avoid losing is to decline to play the game. To refuse to accept any of the premises behind the ideological structure our opponents have so painstakingly constructed.


“Lost my humanity” indeed! That I should have to waste my time dealing with such inanities is a sign of the degraded condition into which modern intellectual discourse has descended. My interlocutor in this case is a young man, as you may have guessed. His capacity to ratiocinate, rudimentary at best, is evidence of the devastation that has been wrought upon British secondary education over the past two generations.

Any ability I possess to reason effectively and write lucidly I owe to the quality of the grammar school I attended in England more than forty years ago. I didn’t realize it at the time, but those years represented the final glory of a magnificent educational structure that now lies in ruins across the entire nook-shotten isle of Albion.

As Riddley Walker said (in the eponymous novel by Russell Hoban), upon seeing the “shyning of them broakin machines” at Fork Stoan: “O, what we ben! And what we come to!”

32 thoughts on “The Shyning of Them Broakin Machines

  1. Dear Baron,

    I think it IS very important to turn their loaded questions back upon them as you did in a number of instances.

    “Don’t you think that YOU have lost your humanity with your support of those who kill homosexuals, murder people who don’t share their religion, rape and mutilate children . . . ” etc., etc.

    One insult deserves another in return.

  2. This is all about the moral ‘high point’ arguments, but when the ‘moral high ground’ was invented by a particular clique, precisely for their own defence position. It unassailable simply because the morality at its heart is emotional, and therfore fluid; ebbing and flowing with the tide of public opinion.

    To try to trap these participants in the left polgion is well nigh impossible, because they will refuse to enter ‘neutral’ ground.

    When you have control of the flow of information and of public opinion you do not need to either apologise or explain, you just dictate.

    That the Baron lacks humanity is not at issue because the very term humanity is defined by the questioner not the Baron, and is in itself flexible relative to the journalist’s assumptions in seeking the interview.

    Pinochet did not stop and argue with Allende, he knew that he had lost the arguments before he even started. He just forcibly removed Allende’s powerbase.

    Because, for the rational right, there are well defined moral limits, we are easy prey. We will practise restraint and self control, and we are thus defenceless against a foe for whom the end justifies the means. The left plays no limit poker, and it plays to win regardless.

    One cannot stop socialism, it creeps, it insinuates itself, it has no static morality but it has a mouldable plastic ‘wallace and gromit’ morality that which is always focussed on its own ends. It is a cross between a chamelion and a tyrannosaurus rex.

    Essentially socialism is well thought out bestiality, a sort of quasi benevolent animalist religion where ‘fish are friends not food’ but get the chips (fries for the colonials :) in and frying anyway in case we change our minds.

  3. Paradox:
    For all the blah, blah about their concern for the human kind and society at large, lefties have only generated societies where individuals are incapable of the minimum compassion towards other than themselves. Examples abound in the former Soviet Block ( Russian mafia, prostitution in Ukraine, drug dealing, dealing nuclear weapons to terrorist, et al). In the West we are experiencing now their compassion for their fellow man with the mass immigration and the inevitable clash.
    On the other hand, those defending individual freedom and free market tend to generate a society with a sense of belonging and therefore more compassionate. When you value yourself, you tend to see ‘value’ in those around you.
    So, who is humanitarian here? Certainly not those rabid hominoids in the left.

  4. I have pondered the choice presented above carefully and whilst Baron’s analysis of why one should not answer such questions from such people is generally correct (and I love the tar baby analogy), in this particular instance I would support giving the Weston answer. And following it up with the counter question offered by Independent. For this reason: unlike “Are you a racist?” that particular question lends itself to a very succinct and powerful answer.

    It is their sense of humanity, I would warrant, that motivates and animates those supporting the “Counter-jihad” in the West. From watching him speak and reading his writings it is as plain as plain can be that Geert Wilders is a man of immense humanity, the price he pays in terms of disrupted family life alone is horrendous. There is no personal gain for him whatsoever. Some might counter that he enjoys the notoriety of being a contrarian: one would have to be clinically insane to choose the life Geert Wilders has to lead out of a desire for notoriety and plainly he is not insane. I have noted two theories put forward by Dutch members of PC-MC brigade as to what drives Wilders.

    The first “theory” is that Wilders was once robbed and beaten up by what he calls “Moroccan street terrorists” – this has happened to thousands of Dutch people ( and, if we substitute “Arab”, “Turk” or “Pakistani” for “Moroccan”, thousands of Belgians, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, French, Germans and Britons), if anything it serves to intimidate them into being quiet and keeping their heads below the parapet. It is a trite and simplistic and woefully inadequate explanation for why a man would devote his life to the cause Wilders has embraced.

    The second, even more risible, “theory” is that Wilders is ashamed at his part-Indonesian racial heritage and, applying a pseudo-psychological analysis that is so prevalent these days, in an act of “projection” he devotes himself to being more Dutch than a Dutchman whose forebears are all ethnically Dutch by attacking immigrants to the Netherlands. This theory is erroneously predicated on Wilders being opposed to immigrants on the basis of their ethnicity/race, disregarding the incontestable fact that it is their religion Wilders is critical of.

    It never seems to occur to those of the PC-MC mindset that there are people who take up an anti-establishment ideological position out of genuine belief (resting on intellectual honesty and rational empirical examination) and selfless concern for the welfare of their community.

    That is, the Geert Wilders, Pat Condells and Fjordmans of the world are driven by their humanity. I suspect that is because those of the PC-MC mindset are overwhelmingly intellectually dishonest opportunists and poseurs, unprincipled self-serving careerists and/or cowardly sheep who just can’t (or are too lazy to) think for themselves and just go along with prevailing orthodoxies for an easy life. It is utterly foreign to them that people with Wilders’ integrity and courage exist.

    You refer to the English grammar schools of the 1960′s being part of a, now lost, magnificent educational structure. It is a sad and wicked paradox that the people who destroyed the grammar school system – which gave free quality education and resulting economic advancement and social mobility to generations of bright working class and lower-middle class children which thereby enriched and improved the overall social fabric of Britain- were of the “progressive” and “egalitarian” Left. The fruits of their efforts mean now only the wealthy can give their children a quality education (through private schooling) and children from less well-off families are condemned to a terrible public education system. This of course only consolidates the class system the Left so despises, the opposition to which has been a central plank of British leftist reformers for a century.

    • In the sixties there was a “Little Red Book” known as “The Communist Catechism”.
      It defined Grammer Schools as: “A capitalist plot to remove the most intelligent working class children from their own class and incorporate them into the middle class , thus depriving the working class of their natural leaders.

      The destruction of the Grammer Schools was no accident.

  5. Islam itself is racist. Some men can enter mosques without beards, others have to wear beards. Islam taught us that the first men are a race. Islam taught us racism.

  6. Yes, I agree with Paul here, & did make that point in the comments on the other thread. We oppose Islamic doctrines & practices because of our humanity, our love for other people, our respect for others, and for the truth.

    The real question is: why can’t that journalist see that? He’s blinkered by … something. He needs to think about what that is.

    • I think blinkered is the wrong word. The jornolist must surely be
      conscious that his questions are all bent. Don’t forget that his wages
      are probably the most focusing thing in his mind. Some people only function properly when the motivation of money is dangled in front of them. He’s clever enough to ask slightly difficult questions, and he’s clever enough to know that the impression he create is going to have no connection to the way HE lives his life. He is able to live with this
      double-standard. Modern man.

      • … exactly … if you work for the Guardian, the BBC, the NYT you know which line to toe …

  7. I’d like to add to my previous comment. Because I also think that we should follow-up any interrogatory, e.g. “Don’t you think you have lost your humanity by supporting an ideology which mandates the murder of unbelievers . . . ” with an actual declaration and accusation, e.g. “I think that you have lost your humanity by supporting an ideology which mandates the murder of unbelievers . . ” etc.

    It doesn’t help us to be too nice to these people. Behaving like a gentleman (or gentlewoman) doesn’t help us. Of course, we have to protect ourselves from libels suits, but aside from that, let’s go after them! Subtleties are are wasted on this people!

    Usually this will be the most effective strategy I think.

    p.s. I was once told by an attorney that if you preface your accusation with the phrase, “In my opinion,” you protect yourself from a libel suit.

  8. Gentlemen/Ladies the journalist does not care about your counter question, he is right and HE knows it; there is no room in HIS world for self doubt, in fact, he does not even acknowledge that there is any alternative world view to that of his own.

    He supports Islam because it is the current ‘fashion’ to do so. He is probably mildly to moderately anti-semitic too, but he will hide this under a mantle of anti-zionism because that is what his personal wizards of oz demand. By taking the yellow brick ‘fashion’ road, he can regurgitate the accepted toto dogma and build metal straw men and tell lions, all without taking any personable responsibility or risk, after all he is only ‘obeying orders’ as he puts the the journalistic zyklon B into the Baron’s shower room. Maybe he is Dotty too.

  9. Yes, to clarify: I see the point the Baron is making – don’t play according to their “rules”. I recall the difficulty Paul Weston had during that so-called “interview” with a journalist not too long ago. These people have lines of code running in their operating system which prevents them from hearing any logical, factual arguments that criticise Islam or multiculturalism. It doesn’t matter how you try to defend yourself against their ad hominem attacks, their input procedure just ignores your response. So my strategy would be to attack their own software! That is to say – at the top of their “Islam” program they have data structures which their input procedures call upon to classify things people like the Baron say. And no matter what he says, he’s classified according to that data structure (as an “Islamophobe, etc.)

    And as the Baron says, that’s a waste of time. Why not turn things around & instead of providing input for their software to process – get them to question their software! Reverse engineer what they’re saying & lay their lines of code out on the table – then go over it & show them why their operating system doesn’t work.

    Don’t wait to be accused of “losing your humanity” – right off the bat show the other party that THEY have betrayed their own humanity, that THEY are anti-women, that THEY are supporting an ideology which is inhumane and cruel, that by refusing to condemn the religious persecution committed EVERY DAY throughout the Islamic world against non-Muslims, it is THEY who are supporting hatred and religious bigotry, etc. etc. It’s a long list.

    Put them on the back foot for a change.

    It’d do them good.

  10. @ mcinSderot,
    One of the key moments in my life was when I visited the Imperial War Museum in London. My colleague and I walked through the Holocaust Exhibition and saw the Zykon B that was used by the Nazis. The shoes & tin cups taken from the victims at Auschwitz.

    How many Western journalists are still “working towards the Fuehrer” today?

  11. I’m always puzzled why the ‘lefties’ find defence of Islam so beguiling. If Moslems ever get to impose their Sharia on the UK, Europe etc, the lefties would be the first to feel their wrath.
    The homosexual brigade (no harm to them) would have their proclivities whipped out of them. There’d be no more drunken carousing in their university bars, and walking in High Street with their arms around their chick would be classified as ‘haram’, earning them both a further flogging.
    Who do the lefties really think their champions are? Or is Islam just another contrary position against the status quo which has to championed regardless?
    I put it all down to the immaturity and impetuousness of youth.

    • Leftards / libtards are drawn to alliance with Islamics because 1.
      they see Islam standing up for itself and getting huge concessions, which they can’t do, and 2. because lefties are so incredibly naive they don’t know anything about the totally cancerous nature of Islam in any form. It’s like the weedy little boy in the playground who is
      terrified of the big boys but finds one big boy who he doesn’t feel threatened by, so he happily joins forces with him, for protection. He is not aware that his ally is actually a bigger threat.

    • … England already has numerous no go areas where non islamic fems, gays etc are harassed …

  12. It’s a refreshing change to read posts like this, which are trying to tackle the thorny problem of how to tackle radicals. Like a lot of people, after 9/11 I started reading about Islamic doctrines and history, and believed that the society I lived in cared about the truth, and operated in a rational manner. Since then it has become all too clear that the people who have positions of power in our societies care not a jot about the truth, and as for talking in a rational, factual way with anyone in civil society today – it just doesn’t happen. Like the Baron, I have memories of being taught properly at school, and of studying logic formally at university years later. But expecting politicians, journalists, & academics in the West today to think rationally or to put principles before their own self-interest: that’s a forlorn hope.

    The Baron’s point about refusing to play according to their rules is well taken. But what I would suggest is reverse engineering their operating system, right in front of them, lay their own rules out before them, and show them why their “software” doesn’t run according to logic, love or humanity.

    They’re living in a virtual reality where instead of looking honestly at the doctrines and history of Islam, they insist that there is a utopia just there, around the corner, where all cultural values will exist in harmony, and in order to bring that utopian vision about, they are willing to betray anything and anyone. To paraphrase Isaiah Berlin, they are willing to make great sacrifices in order to bring about their final solution to the question of how humanity should live. But there is no such utopia, it’s a fantasy, a chimera – a virtual reality.

    Maybe we need to start pointing this out to them.

  13. You are right, of course. Do not let them define the argument. If anyone asks if you are a racist, the proper reply is: “Aren’t you being politically correct?”
    The enemy hates being called politically correct, and it alerts the onlookers and waverers as to what is going on.

    • I used to ask them to define racism, then pointed out that Islam is a political religious ideology, which is rather funny as many are unable to do so.

      Then I would point out that they are the racists because they are linking Islam with the Arab people, while my focus is purely on it as a political religious ideology that is directly opposed to the core values enshined in the universal declaration of human rights, then I would refer to them as a racist and would not let go of it.

      • Yes, my strategy is to ask: Can white people become Muslims?

        Yes? Then Islam isn’t racist.

        So criticising it can’t be either.

        Correct?

        And just watch their brain struggle to cope with that …

  14. Or perhaps just boil it all down to this:

    Whenever such an absurd, ad hominem assertion is made by a radical journalist, or whoever, just respond by saying:

    “Of course not. What on earth is wrong with you?”

  15. @nick

    Such is the propaganda, that unless the journalist has studied History outside of current academia, he will not know that he is following a Nazi formula. There always was paper thin difference between communist socialism and Nazi (nationalist socialism) and when Stalin started his war propaganda ‘nationalism’ campaign for the ‘motherland’, any gap totally disappeared.

    The organs of the left are Nazi through and through, the lies are the same, but the names have been changed to protect the [del] innocent [/del] guilty (showing my age!)

  16. Having read the excellent articles and in the comments on this subject over a number of posts, I have to congratulate many of the writers here for their common sense. My own journey started in 1997 when I was told by a work colleague of her experiences in Ilford, where her familly originally from Ireland was driven out by Muslims, at the same time I read about a woman assaulted outside the Regent Street mosque for wearing a sleeveless T-shirt. At that point I wanted to understand why.

    I started that journey that many of you have followed before the events of 9-11 which woke up many more people to the Islamic issue. Initially I started off without the internet, I got hold of a Koran and read that first, I also found sites with ahadiths and got a translated reliance of the traveller. My own historical knowledge was pretty good as I had been fascinated with the Byzantium Empire and knew of the destruction of the Ancient world by Islam.

    It did not take me long to work out what Islam is, and then to my utter amazement, I found that when you tried to warn people about it, you were instantly labelled a racist. a fascist, a nazi etc. ad nauseam… This built within me a huge frustration, because I just could not see the logic of our leaders in how they were reacting to this threatening political religious ideology. Evantually I took the decision to step back, because it was like head butting a brick wall.

    This excuse for a journalist is like so many that I came across in those years, thinking they were clever, but completely devoid of understanding, their minds are closed, they are followers of the socialist religion, they in fact have lost their humanity because they have submerged it into what I call collective humanity, which is not humanity at all because the individual does not matter.

    Very simply this, Islam is the religion of Xenophobia, I wish people would refer to it as that, because quite simply it is, its bears in its core writings a hatred of the other i.e non-Muslims. And if you dare to immerse youself into the insanity of Islam you soon get to see that, and what is worse is the intellectural gymnastics it uses to hide its real intent.

    I evantually worked out that our western leaders do in fact have a plan, however it will fail, they hope to paint the Islamics as misunderstanders of Islam and therefore purge those that are violent from the Islamic body, however because they fail to see what Islam is they do not understand that this will fail, because Islam is extreme, it is not just that a group of them are extreme.

    The only way to beat Islam, is to expose it to the full light of open protected criticism and humor, show it no respect, ridicule it and expel the Salafits and the real fundementalists and if we do this as a society, Islam will die in the West. But this take moral courage and real hard work and to be perfectly frank, I do not think any of our leaders have it in them, the only person I have seen so far is Geert Wilders and he is not in a position to get heard.

    We are about to go through a civilisational collapse, we are in the early stages of it, our states are bankrupt and losing their industries, our people are dumbed down and treated like cattle which many just accept, “what can I do?” The financial crisis when all Western nations default on their debt will be the start of either the final death of the occidental world or a rebirth. And this in the end is why I stopped trying to say to people this can be dealt with, its too late, only death and destruction and perhaps the final end of the west awaits us.

    • Calmly explain that only muslims can be racist, as muslims have muslim privilege. Apartheid was very wrong and deplorable, but not racist. It was lateral violence. White and black non-muslims should unite against muslims. Lateral violence is caused by internalized islamic supremacism.

Comments are closed.